Clause a) through to b) in the explanatory notes have very...

Clause a) through to b) in the explanatory notes have very specific mile stones that need to be achieved in order for directors to get the performance rights. Which seem fair enough.

However clause d) tends to says that if the company enters into an alternative transaction that materially advances the Company then it is up to the board to determine there own Performance rights pay out.

This means that the merger with DRM will entitle the directors to pay them the 25,000,000 shares and dilute our investment by 3.7%.

Clause D is too vague the share holders should vote against performance rights. With the merger, performance rights should base on a specific mile stone ie a specific number of tonnes of ore from deflector being put through the processing plant or specific number of pounds of gold from the deflector deposit being produced.